Scientists Model Words as Entangled Quantum States in our Minds

By Lisa Zyga , Phys.org

Researchers have modeled the human mental lexicon as consisting of words that cannot be separated from other words, which may explain why words have many associations, a feature which helps us communicate. Credit: Flickr.com by surrealmuse.

(PhysOrg.com) -- When you hear the word “planet,” do you automatically think of the word’s literal definition, or of other words, such as “Earth,” “space,” “Mars,” etc.? Especially when used in sentences, words tend to conjure up similar words automatically. Further, human beings’ ability to draw associations and inferences between words may explain why we’re generally able to communicate complex ideas with each other quite clearly using a limited number of words.

Research has shown that words are stored in our memories not as isolated entities but as part of a network of related words. This explains why seeing or hearing a word activates words related to it through prior experiences. In trying to understand these connections, scientists visualize a map of links among words called the mental lexicon that shows how words in a vocabulary are interconnected through other words.

However, it’s not clear just how this word association network works. For instance, does word association spread like a wave through a fixed network, weakening with conceptual distance, as suggested by the “Spreading Activation” model? Or does a word activate every other associated word simultaneously, as suggested in a model called “Spooky Activation at a Distance”?

Although these two explanations appear to be mutually exclusive, a recent study reveals a connection between the explanations by making one novel assumption: that words can become entangled in the human mental lexicon. In the study, researchers from the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) in Australia and the University of South Florida in the US have investigated the quantum nature of word associations and presented a simplified quantum model of a mental lexicon.

Classical vs. Quantum Correlations

The researchers begin by explaining the difference between classical correlations (in the Spreading Activation model) and quantum correlations (in the Spooky Activation at a Distance model). Specifically, no pre-existing elements or hidden variables exist in quantum correlations as they do in classical correlations. For example, a classical correlation would be a scenario in which someone writes the same number on two pieces of paper, and sends them to two distant ends of the Universe. When received, both papers have the same number, but this correlation is due to a pre-existing action.

On the other hand, the quantum analogue of this scenario is much stranger. At one end of the Universe, someone writes a number on a blank piece of paper. At the other end of the Universe, another individual discovers that the same number is written on another piece of paper. Called quantum entanglement, this scenario doesn’t occur in everyday life, but it has been observed at the quantum scale and is referred to as “non-locality.”

Non-Separable Entities

In this study, the researchers ask if quantum entanglement might exist for systems beyond modern physics, such as word correlations.

“We take the position that quantum entanglement in modern physics is a physical manifestation of something more general called ‘non-separability,’” coauthor Peter Bruza of QUT told PhysOrg.com. “We view quantum theory as an abstract framework for developing models of non-separability in a variety of domains including cognition. Note that, even though we are using quantum theory to model the non-separability of words in human memory, we make no claim that this corresponds to a physical manifestation of entanglement in the brain.”

In the researchers’ word entanglement model, each associated word can either be recalled or not recalled. An entangled state would occur when two associated words (e.g. “Earth” and “space”) are either both recalled or both not recalled in relation to a cue word (e.g. “planet”). Intuitively, this makes sense: when visualizing Earth, it’s hard to not also visualize the surrounding space. In this example, Earth and space make up a non-separable entity.

Word Recall Probability

Next, the researchers suggest that the probability of a word being activated in memory lies somewhere between Spreading Activation (in which words are individually recalled based on individually calculated conceptual distance) and Spooky Activation at a Distance (in which the cue word simultaneously activates the entire associative structure). Most likely, Spreading Activation underestimates the strength of activation, while Spooky Activation at a Distance overestimates the strength of activation.

“Even though both the Spreading Activation and Spooky-Activation-at-a-Distance models are based on an underlying network, both models are still fundamentally reductive in nature and assume that words are separate, distinct entities in human memory,” Bruza explained. On the other hand, the quantum-based model doesn’t assume that words are separate entities.

In the new model, associative word recall probability depends on how strongly connected the associated words are to each other. For instance, “Earth” and “space” are entangled in the context of “planet,” but “Earth” and “gas giant” may not be entangled (though “Jupiter” and “gas giant” may be). Words that are entangled with many other words have a greater probability of being recalled, while words that are entangled with few or no other words have a smaller recall probability. While the idea of word entanglement may sound odd, Bruza explained that it may be just one example of a strange concept.

“We think it is odd that entanglement occurs at all,” he said. “As a phenomenon, it suggests that the world is not the separable and reducible place that we have always taken it to be. If entanglement is found in other types of (non-physical) systems, it will suggest that the quantum formalism is modeling non-separability per se, and this will indicate that quantum theory could provide a whole new approach to the study of complex systems, i.e. non-separable and irreducible systems.”

The Future of Quantum Cognition

The researchers explain that their model is overly simplified, and it would be very difficult to extrapolate to a more realistic model due to the vastness of the human mental lexicon. However, experiments involving memory tests might be able to distinguish between the predictions of the three different models. Currently, researchers are performing an empirical analysis using the University of South Florida’s “Free Association Norms,” a database of word association norms which involves data from more than 6,000 participants producing nearly three-quarters of a million responses to 5,019 stimulus words. Eventually, all this analysis of semantic models may have applications for future technology, Bruza explained.

“Current information processing technology is very efficient at processing symbols, but is largely clueless as to what they mean,” he said. “Our position is that, in order for such technology to better align with humans, it needs to process ‘meanings’ like those we harbor. As our information environment becomes more complex, we will need technology that can draw context-sensitive associations like the ones we would draw, but increasingly don’t as we lack the cognitive resources to do so. Therefore, such the ‘meanings’ processed by such technology should be motivated from a socio-cognitive perspective.”

This kind of research is an example of an emerging field called “quantum cognition,” the aim of which is to use quantum theory to develop radically new models of a variety of cognitive phenomena ranging from human memory to decision making. Although speculative, this research is gaining momentum. For instance, later this year, the highly regarded Journal of Mathematical Psychology will publish a special issue of quantum models of cognition. In addition, quantum cognition is a prominent theme within the Quantum Interaction Symposia, which provide a forum for a growing body of researchers applying quantum theory to non-quantum domains.

Citation:
Scientists Model Words as Entangled Quantum States in our Minds (2009, February 18)
retrieved 15 September 2019
from https://phys.org/news/2009-02-scientists-words-entangled-quantum-states.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

User comments

By AWT these "Entangled Quantum States" should be of mechanical nature, they really exists inside of our brain like standing waves of electrochemical activity and neural network density/impedance. If we see some phrase and/or combination of words together, it becomes hardwired into our brain like association for faster and effective usage.

For something to behave "like" quantum entanglement, it must disobey classical physics, because quantum entanglement is inconsistent with classical physics. Yet these researchers claim there is a classical analog of quantum entanglement. Therefore these researchers are wrong.

It's easy to say - but which experience of yours contradicts this view, really? For me such research is rather selfevident.

Science is not about what feels good or sounds reasonable, science is about what is backed by experiment.

It is irresponsible to publish a theory for without a single backing piece of evidence because many lay people who trust scientists may be mislead.

This article is a perfect example of taking advantage of a fashionable buzzword to sell useless and confusing theory. What's even worse from the explanation of quantum entanglement they give it seems the authors don't even know what they are talking about.

AWT predicts many classical analogies of quantum phenomena.

If AWT explains so much it should be easy to come up with some quantitative predictions which can verified by experiment or even by data already in literature, try to predict electron mass or other masses, derive one of physical constants from the other ones, explain why dark matter makes up the percent it makes up, come up with explanation for quantum of action, calculate pioneer effect, anything, there are countless places where modern physics can be improved.

If you manage to make some valid predictions AWT will be promoted to a regular scientific theory and many people will learn about it, not to mention prizes and funding for yourself, OTOH if you can't predict anything new it means AWT only *seems* to explain things and you are fooling yourself and wasting time.

For Penrose, consciousness has a non-algorithmic ingredient. At the quantum level, different alternatives can coexist. A single quantum state could in principle consist of a large number of different, simultaneous activities.

By AWT the neural net inside of brain doesn't use quantum phenomena on it's fundamental level (at least I don't see any direct evidence for it). Instead of this, waves of electrochemical activity between individual neurons appears like quantum waves of boson condensate on background of ion motion confined to cellular membranes, mediated by London cohesion interactions, i.e. by similar way, like the motion of ions inside of ball lightning, for example.

..if you can't predict anything new it means AWT only *seems* to explain things...

Explanation isn't prediction. For example, from AWT follows the dispersion and superluminal speed of gravitational waves (in analogy to surface (light) and underwater waves) and it explains, why we cannot detect them. The same is valid for hidden dimension, Lorentz symmetry violation and other quite common phenomena - scientists simply didn't realize, where to look for them.

Deeper insight could save us a lota money, indeed. But I don't think, science can reflect new things from outside, especially if it could cut investments into new research. Science is salary machine for people involved, only very gradual changes can occur here.

A fun book about cognitive science is "I am a strange loop" by Douglas Hofstadter.
If you are interested in how thinking actually works take a read through the book. Not to say he is right, of course, I'm just saying it is very interesting.

It's interesting to note how the psychological basis of thought is generally capable of being grouped into to two basic directions, overall.

As in -the wiring of the people who fear the unknown and exist via labeling and writing in stone..and the others who can shift with the breeze and end up getting to more places and faster-in discovery.

One is filled with a kind of wonder and joy of life and discovery always shifting toward the new........ the other finds joy in life via permanence, sedimentation, and labeling.

I ceased making apologies and easing the fear of the sedimental types-- long ago. Not worth the effort. They will still take a bite out of you regardless of your position or behaviour toward them.

May as well kick them in the teeth while they do it, for they won't change until it fails to work for them.

I didn't even bother to read the story -- I took one glance at the headline and knew the user comments would be the best part. How did I know that the first post would start with the words "By AWT"? Thanks for not disappointing me, guys. ;-)

But Damon surely a totally irrelevant post about AWT should have been unexpected when the article is about explaining poorly understood phenomena with a badly misunderstood botch of upside down quantum theory since there is NO evidence for quantum processes in nerves in the first place.

Not to say that Dr. Penrose if full of it(remember he was brought up by Alexa and had nothing to do with the dubious speculation masquerading as research in the article). Penrose may be right. He is after all a brilliant and competent mathematical-physicist who makes my brain hurt. I actually hope he is right about there being quantum processes in the human brain. Its just that there is no evidence for it so far and his hypothesis about micro-tubules seemed pretty questionable even when he first proposed it. Maybe in the future.

..its just that there is no evidence for it so far and his hypothesis...

Of course not, here are much closer evidence. The neural waves are spreading like solitons around neural network and here's a firm experimental evidence for it (although it doesn't involve micro-tubules). In addition, the behavior of neural membranes corresponds the specific state of matter, which exists for example in supercritical fluids and it introduces the non-linear energy wave spreading. Existence of solitons correspond the wave packets of elementary particles by AWT.

The phrase "by AWT" means, it's not commonly accepted fact, but my hypothesis. I'm using it for distinction of peer-reviewed research and private speculations to make it clear for every reader.

...people who fear the unknown and exist via labeling and writing in stone..and the others who can shift with the breeze and end up getting to more places ...

AWT explain the existence of such dualities wery well, for example by using of water surface analogy. Energy spreads more intensivelly at water surface, just because it's formed by combination of two phases. The formation of phase interface therefore accelerates the evolution. After all, this is why we have sexual dimorphism, system of two (or more) political parties, bosons and fermions and so on.

The rest is completelly matter of probability. Just because such dual system spreads energy better, it's more atemporal and stable so we have a nonzero probability, we will remain inside it during evolution.

E-mail the story

Scientists Model Words as Entangled Quantum States in our Minds

Note

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose.
The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Your message

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

Your Privacy

This site uses cookies to assist with navigation, analyse your use of our services, and provide content from third parties.
By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy
and Terms of Use.